The Informers (2008) Reviews

• A misunderstood film

  beckeriffic2010-07-03

  Firstly, I'm shocked by the amount of negative reviews I've seen for this film. It seems as though everyone has missed the point entirely. THIS FILM IS A SATIRE. So saying it's a glorification of sex, drugs, and decadence is absurd. Second of all, this film is not about plot - it's a character study. Yes, this is a film about the selfish, narcissistic L.A. scene and the people who inhabit it. And no, this film is not attempting to glorify the lifestyle these characters lead. The film is a warning, a modern morality tale. This film could have just as easily been set in ancient Rome. In the book, it's clear that Christie is HIV positive, and of course, the implication is that everyone she's slept with, as well as everyone that has slept with everyone she has is positive as well. Hardly a glorification of sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Everyone in this film is lonely, desperate, and lost and will most likely soon be dead. A sequel to this film would depict the characters are wasting away from AIDS in their expensive private hospital rooms. Nothing good comes from the way these characters act, so how can this be a glorification? Ellis, like in American Psycho and Gramorama, is not trying to glamorize this lifestyle, he's attempting to satirize and criticize the people it creates. I'm frankly surprised that all can't see that. And The Informers does this very well. It shows us people that are difficult to like and even easier to hate. Towards the end of the film, the viewer isn't sure if these characters are to be pitied or laughed at. We're not sure if we should be appalled or fascinated. And that's the point. The Informers" is not a film about "sex, drugs, and rock and roll, European-style" (as an actor who plays Graham from the movie so eloquently puts it in the commentary). Rather, it's a film about beautiful people doing awful things. Why? To hi-light the moral decay that exists in our culture. To shock us into change. Bret Easton Ellis, a self-professed "moralist", is making a statement; beauty is only skin-deep and decadence will lead to your downfall. Also, despite the social commentary, this is one hell of a beautiful film. Perhaps what is so disturbing for people and why this film is so harshly criticized is because of what it does. It holds a mirror up to the viewer and you won't necessarily like what you see. There are no heroes in this film. Only moral decay, desperation, apathy. People who lack in a moral compass and need guidance. There is no catharsis and no "happy ending." There is no resolution. You are only left with your thoughts. At its heart, this interlocking web of shorts is really about the complex and fragile dynamics between fathers and sons. As the actor who plays Tim says it's a "relationship piece" and I agree. Now, that said, being a big fan of Ellis' work myself, this film disappoints as the "adaptation" it claims to be. For one thing, in the book, Bryan Metro is a vampire, and there is no suggestion of this in the film. Also, the film downplays the effect of AIDS on the characters, which is of course the main "concequence" of these character's grotesquely decadent lifestyles. In the film, it is implied that Christie is dying of AIDS, while in the book it is made clear. arguably the antagonist, its her decadence that brings about the demise of everyone around her. Perhaps it's this line that encapsulates the film in a way; "you can't make it in this town unless you're really willing to do some awful things. And you know, I'm willing." And this is the beauty of film. WE would never do such things, but it's thrilling to watch these "fake" people on screen do them. The irony - a common device in Ellis' work - is how these beautiful people are doing awful things to each other. It's interesting that the director said that for this film he was inspired by Italian movies from the 1970s, depicting beautiful people in terrible situations. The themes of decadence, hedonism and the price of that lifestyle fit well with the ominous soundtrack and dark tone the film used. "The Informers" is more than another 80s noir period film with a killer soundtrack featuring beautiful naked young people doing drugs. That is the surface of this film. The purpose, the "message" dare I say, goes far deeper than that and is based on how you choose to interpret this film and the book it is based on. We are not meant to laugh at these people, despite how lost and clueless they are, we're meant to pity them, and loathe the parents who made them the way they are. As Graham tearfully explains to Martin, he needs someone to tell him "what's good and what's bad" and asks how he's supposed to know if no one ever told him. On the surface, The Informers is a fascinating film on its own merit. It falls short as a successful adaptation of Ellis' book, though.

  More

• I think many missed the point (spoliers!)

  sir-richard-12009-08-29

  Hey all, I read many comments and I think a lot of you missed the point. Yes the ending was sudden...very! But you need to look at the time this was filmed. Whilst I cant tie every major role in with my hypothesis...here goes: This was filmed at the time when AIDS was unknowingly ripping through various populations. They make reference to it at the start of the film with a news clip in the background and the rash - which ties in with the woman at the end of the film. The woman on the beach at the end of the movie had AIDS - that much is clear. The rapid ending represented not only her likely rapid departure, but a twisted entry into the fact that while the movie was ending, the problem was just beginning for many other characters in the movie. That woman is the key, because if you back-track through all the sexual relations in the film (who slept with whom), you will quickly understand that she was the key to spreading AIDS to many of the main characters. The whole point of the movie was that it was a tragedy - here she was dying, and a dozen or so others were also inflicted but didn't know it because little was known of AIDS at the time, and they were all separated by degrees of separation - other than sleeping with her or someone who slept with her. The blond spiky haired guy she shared a bed with - he gave it to Bassinger's character as he was sleeping with her. Bassinger gave it to her (sort of) ex-husband because although they didn't sleep with each other, she injected him with a syringe (ie Im assuming one she recently used as she seemed to have it on hand!) near the end. The blonde woman also probably gave it to the guy that really liked her and was sharing the bed with the spiky haired guy and the blonde infected woman. And so on, and so on. Watch the film in that light, and you quickly realize that the intertwining of many (maybe not all) of the stories and characters was around the passing on of AIDS and there was silent deadly link between many of them. Im not sure about the video star - Id have to watch it again to see if he had a link back to someone likely carrying the virus. If he did, it was interesting that he had this thing about sleeping with young people....and its possible the young girl who appears to have been abducted by the child stealing guy is one of the young women the star slept with, so he was tied up in it too. I am not sure how the man and his son in Hawaii fits in. Well, thats my theory!

  More

• I have to give this movie some credit

  zeppelinfan7772009-08-28

  First let me start off by saying that I am a fan of the book, which is now one of my favorite books. So I was very excited about the movie. I honestly liked the movie. I do not think that it is a great movie or worthy of anything, but its not horrible, like everyone else thinks it is. I'm not sure if people hate on this movie because they think the acting sucks, or because they think there is no plot line. I can agree on both parts. One, there were certain actors in this movie whose acting was simply bad. But then there were others, such as Kim Basinger, Winona Ryder, Mickey Rourke, Jon Foster, Mel Raido, who played Bryan Metro, who all rocked. Two, there were aspects in the book that could have made the movie better, such as not taking Jamie the vampire completely out of the movie and a much better ending. But the other thing to remember is that this is not the book, its a movie based off of the book and for what they used in the movie is pretty accurate. My advice would be to read the book before seeing the movie. In doing so, I think the movie brought the characters from the book to life. I also feel that another reason why people didn't like this movie is because all of the supernatural elements were taken out. I will gladly admit that I would have loved for there to have been vampires and aliens in this movie. And lastly, and this is the main reason why I think people hate this movie or just don't get it, The Informers is about scummy people in the early 80's in Los Angeles and focuses on how they are all connected in some way. THAT'S IT. And the movie portrays it perfectly in my opinion. There isn't much else that you could do with the movie when that's all the story is about. People also need to know ahead of time that you are not going to like these people either, minus the select few who are not entirely heartless. Honestly, it's a good, gritty story. If you are like me and you like movies about sex, drugs, the 80's, Los Angeles, and greed, then this movie is worth seeing. I feel that this movie is a documentary on the 80's. You want 80's, this movie delivers 80's. Granted the movie wont beat out the book, the movie is still good.

  More

• All This Talent......But It Did Not Amount To Much!

  prodbabies2009-04-24

  Well I just saw this film first thing Friday (opening). I was seated near a gentlemen who was having quite a reaction to every scene, and in one scene (not a good one for the acting - but I will get there in a minute) he literally started waving his arms and shaking his head. I look over and the man was tearing up and I though he was nearly about to breakdown in full tears. Seeing such a powerful reaction to some very early scenes in the movie, I thought to myself, "Maybe this is the guy who wrote it??" The novel I thought, unaware at the time who wrote the screenplay. So immediately upon my return, I googled Bret Easton Ellis pics and reviewed many photos. I would bet my life it was him next to me today. Hair a little longer and darker than in some photos, but same nose, and face and exact same eyes. Again he was right next to me so I was not seeing him from across the theater. I asked (whispering) if he was OK. He said yes, then a moment later (after another reaction) quietly got up and moved to the back of the theater. A while later he exit in the middle of the film. Now, for the film itself. This is no "Less Than Zero" which would be the closest genre comparison of the Ellis filmography. While some of the veteran actors gave decent performances the material seemed more shallow than the LA socialites the film was following. But after watching the film I suspect this is much more the fault of the directing than anyone else. It takes the proper hand and understanding of Ellis material to make it work on the stage or film. Unfortunately, two of the lesser performances came from actors we see much more in the film. Foster and Raido seemed like actors "acting" like the types rather then being the types. While the veteran actors seemed to add depth to their performances (beyond the material presented) these two "acted" on a very shallow level, as though trying to imitate the type of person they thought they were playing. Apparently giving their character little thought. The movie sets up many broken and damage relationships and a couple of potentially heated situations, before it suddenly ends.....What??? The entire film ends up being a slice of life (many tragic life's) type of film, with little story or payoff as the ending comes abruptly. At the end I could care less about there problems or issues and the story and directing doesn't help those feelings. Now I am not a person who goes to films to see naked women (a little to old to make that the priority and was unaware of this one), but when the movie was over all I could think was "at least Amber Heard was naked / half-naked a lot and she looked good!" In the lala land of skinny, to outrageously bony women, this one has nice curves. But its sad when you leave a film thinking "where was the story" and you know you will only remember the girl who looked good in "THAT FILM" cause the title and film itself will be forgotten quickly! Now I have not read the Ellis novel, but he did help write the screenplay. Based on his reaction, I can't help to feel this film is not what he imagined it would be. It certainly was not up to what Hollywood has been able to do with some of his other works. To Ellis (as I am sure it was), remember the feeling you had while watching the film. And make sure the next time you sell your story to Hollywood to get paid enough money so you can take it a little easier when the "Filmmakers" butcher your work (who likely did not want you interfering with them cause THEY know how to make films, not some writer)! Or in this case, they at least produced a very unsatisfying film.

  More

• A basic lowdown on The Informers

  ctg07242009-04-27

  I thought I would see this movie with a lot of thoughts running through my head when it ended. That did not really happen. There's not really anything to be said about the story when it finished. The reason is that it was not a story. It was just things happening. There wasn't a beginning, middle or end, which is required for dramatic attachment to a movie. Scenes simply played out for a couple hours. The Informers is not as terrible as most people on IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes make it out to be. At the same time, it isn't a good movie. If you want to see it the way I wanted to, go ahead and see it. I don't need to talk you out of it. Just remember, this is Bret Easton Ellis. The characters are shallow and their arcs are difficult to pinpoint. Nonetheless, some of you may be able to relate to the things going on. On a final note, there is some really decent cinematography and good acting by a good number of the cast. The entire movie is very intimate, so don't take a prude friend with you when you see it.

  More